The invention relates generally to security systems and more particularly, to security systems to control access through a doorway.
Physical security access control systems receive a significant volume of alarms requiring a response from a security staff. Known security access control systems do not differentiate between true alarms (where access has been obtained fraudulently) and false alarms. From experience, instances may occur in which the security staff assumes some alarms are false and do not investigate further. An example of a false door forced open alarm includes a loose door that may trigger such an alarm. Furthermore, in case of a limited security staff, it may not be plausible to investigate each alarm in a timely fashion. Hence, a better classification of a type of alarm is required to design an alarm criteria appropriate for security risk and that would allow the security staff to prioritize and tailor a response accordingly.
One typical hardware solution to avoid a loose door scenario has been to install magnetic locks that will not release when a person pulls on a door. Contacts installed in the door and frame may have different tolerances to determine when the door has been opened. Another typical solution includes elimination of a passive request to exit device and adding hardware having a shorter recovery period, such as a crash bar. However, these solutions are not cost effective and are not feasible at sites having a large number of doors to protect.
Therefore, an improved security access system is desirable to address one or more of the aforementioned issues.